Windham & Windsor Housing Trust Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222878487
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Brattleboro, VT, USA
Phone
8022544604
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,674,551
Expenses
$6,078,222
Assets
$28,069,016
Liabilities
$1,129,596

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • VICTOR MORRISON (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELIZABETH BRIDGEWATER (EXECUTIVE DI): $162,438 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Windham & windsor housing trust (wwht)strengthens the communities of southeast Vermont through the development and stewardship of permanently affordable housing and through ongoing support and advocacy for its residents.

What it reported doing in 2024

Homeownership: accounts for all activity relating to facilitating the ownership & stewardship of single-family homes, facilitating home purchase and improvement loans and providing hud-certified housing counseling services to local homebuyers and homeowners through the community land trust model and facilitating grants to multifamily property owners to make health and safety repairs to apartments. In 2024, the homeownership program successfully passed all federal and state monitoring inspections. Support and services at home for all(sash) and sash for all(sfa) provides a broad and flexible spectrum of support and resources for adults living in wwht properties in the greater brattleboro area. Participants receive support from a full-time sash coordinator, part-time wellness nurse and a part-time social emotional wellness clinician to address health and wellness goals for themselves and their families. The sfa team provides support to participants and coordinates services to address food insecurity, social isolation, financial instability, and mental and physical health challenges.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 53% for direct work, and 47% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some related-organization disclosures are missing.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.1%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 90.9%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $48.91 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 20.8%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.62; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.7%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.4% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.1% of revenue deployed · 90.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $5.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $162K · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $191K reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 36 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.